Regina v. H.R. and D.R. (2012)
Charges of mischief under $5,000.00 and assault (domestic) withdrawn on the second trial date, in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket. H.R. and D.R. were charged by H.R.'s former wife after a heating argument because the complainant covertly recorded private discussions between H.R. and D.R. Defence lawyers David Rose and Joseph Neuberger argued that the complainant had committed a criminal offence by intercepting private communications. In addition, the complainant, in her divorce action, claimed $100,000.00 for damages arising from prior alleged assaults. Joseph Neuberger and David Rose worked closely with the family lawyer representing H.R. and obtained the transcript of an examination on the divorce action. As a result, the defence was able to establish material inconsistencies that undermined the credibility of the complainant. Further, expert psychiatric evidence obtained by Defence lawyers David Rose and Joseph Neuberger demonstrated that the complainant was acting in a highly provocative manner prior to and during her recording of the private discussion in an attempt to provoke a confrontation for the purposes of her laying charges. As a result of the damaged credibility of the complainant, the Crown withdrew all charges just prior to the commencement of the trial.
Regina v. Y.I.K. (2012)
Charges of Assault x 2 (Domestic), Assault with a Weapon and Fail to Comply x 2 withdrawn after extensive pre-trial meetings. The client was charged by his ex-wife and oldest son with a series of assault related offences and was alleged to have breached his bail once his was released from jail on the initial set of charges. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to obtain additional and valuable information through the family court proceedings, including Affidavit evidence that provided the basis to establish a motive to fabricate. In addition, one of the assault allegations and the fail to comply charges arose from alleged contact at an examination during a family court proceeding. Mr. Y.I.K. was required to attend the proceeding, and was alleged to have spoken with and assaulted his son outside the examination room. Joseph Neuberger conducted a series of pre-trials and Judicial pre-trials and successfully convinced the Crown that any alleged breach and assault while Mr. Y.I.K. was attending the examination was not only not a crime but was evidence of a "set up" by the complainant and the son. Both the son and the complainant (ex-wife) were not required to attend the examination but Mr. Y.I.K. was required to attend. Thus, by attending, the complainant and the son intended to initiate contact in order to get Mr. Y.I.K. charged with more offences. Joseph Neuberger carefully analyzed the family court documents and Affidavits and provided a detailed account of events that not only undermined the prosecution evidence, but also established a clear motive to fabricate. As a result, all charges were withdrawn prior to trial.
R. v. C.(C) (2012)
The client was charged with a sexual assault, and Neuberger Rose partner David Rose reviewed the disclosure carefully, and had the complainant's video statement transcribed. Mr. Rose did a complete work-up of the file, and gave his opinion to the Crown that lack of consent could never be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 6 months after the charge was laid the Crown Attorney agreed with Mr. Rose and the charge was completely withdrawn.
Regina v. D.S. and R.S. (2012)
Charges of Assault with a Weapon and Assault withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to trial. The clients were charged with assault related offences arising from an altercation with security staff at BMO field after a soccer game. Defence lawyers Joseph Neuberger and John Navarrete obtained additional statements of witnesses that undermined the facts as described by the main prosecution witnesses. In addition, the prosecution was unable to produce surveillance footage of the event that should have been preserved. As a result of evidence contradicting the main crown witnesses and the lack of an objective recoding of the alleged event, both clients signed common law peace bonds to keep the peace and all charges were withdrawn.
Regina v. W.M. (2012)
Charges of Assault x 2 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to trial. The client was alleged to have been involved in a verbal and physical altercation with two female complainants after leaving a bar in the downtown Toronto club district. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained statements from staff at the bar and independent witnesses who described the event differently than the complainants in their statements to police. In fact, evidence obtained by Joseph Neuberger, strongly suggested the complainants and her friends were the aggressors. After detailed pre-trial discussions, the Crown agreed to withdraw both charges if W.M. signed a common law peace bond. Accordingly, all charges were withdrawn.
R. v. B. P (2012)
Charges of Sexual Assault x 2 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice. After reviewing disclosure, Defence lawyer John Navarrete was able to establish to the Crown Attorney that there were a number of frailties to the prosecution's case including the possibility that this may be a case of mistaken identity. Accordingly, charges were withdrawn prior to setting a date for trial.
Regina v. P.W. (2012)
Client charged with sexual assault and sexual interference x 2, arising from an alleged inappropriate relationship with a student. The allegations encompassed a prolonged period of inappropriate contact including touching that spanned several months, including instances when away on trips with the Scouts. The client was suspended from teaching and had endured months of a lengthy investigation. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger conducted a thorough review of all statements obtained in the criminal investigation and then conducted interviews of many potential defence witnesses that also gave extensive background information on the complainant. At the preliminary hearing, Joseph Neuberger, aggressively cross-examined the complainant to establish a motive to fabricate arising from P.W. firing the complainant from a part-time job and the removal of a lap top computer that the complainant wanted to keep. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to obtain admissions from the complainant as to his own history of telling stories and lies to meet his own needs, and established clear inconsistencies on material facts. At the end of the preliminary hearing, the presiding Judge commented that there was a clear motive for the complainant to fabricate his evidence and that the complainant was not a credible witness. Following the preliminary hearing, the Crown agreed with Joseph Neuberger, that there was absolutely no prospect of conviction and that P.W. was wrongly accused. As such, the charges were withdrawn.
R. v. A. H (2012)
Client charged with Sexual Assault and Sexual Interference was found Not Guilty after a five day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton. Defence Lawyer John Navarrete was able to establish, through vigorous cross-examination of the complainant, significant inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, undermining the credibility of the allegations. The trial judge found that the evidence of the complainant was unsafe to rely upon and A.H. was acquitted of all charges.
R. v. T. P (2012)
Client charged with Assault (X2), Assault with Weapon and Uttering Threat (X2) withdrawn at trial. After successfully arguing against the Crown's Khan Application, which sought to introduce the complainant's videotaped statement into evidence, Defence Lawyer John Navarrete convinced the Crown that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. Accordingly, all charges were withdrawn.
Regina v. M.S. (2012)
Application by complaint for a section 810 restraining order/peace bond against Mr. M.S. (former husband of the complainant) due to allegations of criminal harassment and threaten bodily harm, withdrawn prior to the hearing in the Ontario Court of Justice. The complainant sought to restrain M.S. from any contact with her and their biological daughter who M.S. was seeking access to through the family court. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained the complete history of all proceedings between the parties and after careful review of the complainant's statement, drafted a detailed response to the application outlining why the allegations and the request for a restraining order was an indirect attempt to thwart M.S.'s access to his daughter. Joseph Neuberger was able to convince the assigned crown attorney that the complainant was attempting to alienate M.S. from his daughter and there were no genuine allegations. Accordingly the application was withdrawn.
Regina v. K.P. (2011)
Charge of assault with a weapon (domestic) withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to setting trial date. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained a copy of the 911 call and the statement of the complainant prior to the first court appearance. After detailed review of the prosecution evidence, and with extensive discussions with the Crown Attorney, Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and in the circumstances of the alleged assault, it was not in the public interest to prosecute. Accordingly the charge was withdrawn.
R. v. J(W) (2011)
Client was facing charges of Assault Causing Bodily Harm after argument with wife. On trial date lawyer David Rose subpoaneaed records from cell phone company casting doubt on complainant's version of events. Crown withdrew charge.
Regina v. M.D.R. (2011)
Charge of assault causing bodily harm withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to trial. The client was charged with a bar related fight between the complainant, M.D.R. and two other persons, which resulted in the complainant sustaining a concussion, broken shoulder and various bruising. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger carefully reviewed the statements of the witnesses and sought through the defence investigation statements of other independent witnesses who had viewed the altercation, as well as security video recordings from a nearby McDonald's restaurant. Based upon the defence investigation, Joseph Neuberger was able to establish to the Crown that M.D.R. was only acting in self-defence of himself and his two friends as the complainant had been the aggressor. Accordingly, the charge was withdrawn.
Regina v. J.D.S. (2011)
Charges of Sexual Assault x 2, Sexual Interference x 2, Assault withdrawn after completion of three day preliminary hearing prior to setting a trial in the Superior Court of Justice. J.S. was charged with historical allegations arising from his care of a child during a four year relationship with the child's mother. The allegations arose five years after the end of the relationship, by way of disclosure to a caregiver at a time when the child was under the care of the CAS. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger conducted a defence investigation during which various records were obtained through the search of court records relating to the child complainant. Mr Neuberger found extensive details about the complainant, the mother and other information including psychological issues that would have a very significant impact on the child complainant's ability to perceive, recollect and more importantly to tell the truth. Joseph Neuberger extensively cross-examined the child complainant, the mother of the complainant and other crown witnesses which yielded material inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainant. After the preliminary hearing, defence counsel Joseph Neuberger wrote a detailed letter to the crown analyzing the case and establishing that the crown had no reasonable prospect of conviction. Accordingly, all charges were withdrawn in the Superior court prior to setting the date for trial.
Regina v. J.B. (2011)
Charge of Assault Causing Bodily Harm withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to setting a trial date. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger hired a private investigator to interview various witnesses who were alleged to have seen portions of the altercation between J.B. and the complainant. In addition, Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to obtain statements from the bouncers of the bar where the altercation occurred. Mr. Neuberger conducted extensive pre-trials with the assigned crown, and provided the crown with statements taken during the defence investigation along with a detailed letter drafted by Joseph Neuberger outlining the deficiencies in the crowns case, as the defence asserted J.B. acted in self-defence. Crown counsel agreed with Mr. Neuberger and the charge was withdrawn.
R. v. M.(S.) 2011
Client charged with Sexual Assault. On Preliminary Hearing date lawyer David Rose convinces Crown that the case is weak and there is no reasonable prospect of conviction. Charge withdrawn.
Regina v. KYK (2011)
Charge of domestic assault withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to setting trial date. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger negotiated a withdrawal on the basis that the client sign a peace bond and the complainant and the client complete 12 counselling sessions.
Regina v. X.W. and Q.Z. (2011)
Charges of assault causing bodily harm stayed in the Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton, after defence lawyers David Rose and Joseph Neuberger were successful in arguing that the clients' rights under section 11(b) of the Charter were violated as the case took some twelve and half months to be tried. The two clients were originally charged in October of 2009 with an alleged violent assault of a neighbour. The matter came to trial in February of 2011. However, due to the shortage of Mandarin accredited interpreters, the trial which was scheduled for two days could not be completed and new dates had to be selected in order to have an accredited interpreter available for trial. Due to the inability of the Crown to provide a trial in a reasonable time with an appropriate accredited Mandarin interpreter, defence lawyers Joseph Neuberger and David Rose brought a motion to stay proceedings based upon an unreasonable delay. The judge agreed with the defence motion and accordingly the charges against the two defendants were stayed.
Regina v. R.L. (2011)
Charges of Assault and Threaten Death (domestic) withdrawn prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to demonstrate to the Crown a number of serious inconsistencies in the statement of the complainant in comparison to other statements obtained through the defence investigation. Given the nature of the inconsistencies, and the defence statements, it was negotiated that R.L. sign a peace bond and the charges were accordingly withdrawn.
Regina v. N.B. (2011)
Charges of Assault x 2, Threaten Death x 2, and Criminal Harassment withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to trial. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained email and text communications from the complainant (ex-wife) to the client, N.B., pre-dating and during the time frame of the alleged offences. The content of the communications undermined a significant portion of the evidence of the complainant as to the nature of the relationship. In addition, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish to the Crown significant inconsistencies in the evidence. As a result the Crown agreed that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charges were withdrawn.
Regina v. C.K. (2011)
Client acquitted of Prowl by Night and Criminal Harassment x 2 (domestic related) after three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. C.K. was alleged to have went on the property of his ex-wife and stalked her. The complainant also alleged a history of emotional and physical abuse. The history was relied upon by the Crown to establish the reasonable fear of the complainant. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger carefully investigated all historical allegations, in particular an allegation made by the complainant in the family court proceedings. Joseph Neuberger obtained all police occurrence reports and police notes, including evidence of two prior charges of the complainant in which the complainant resolved the charges by entering into peace bonds. At trial, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger extensively cross-examined the complainant on her evidence and on contradictory evidence obtained by Neuberger during the defence investigation. The defence also called evidence of two police officers to contradict the complainant. The judgment of the court found that the complainant was not a credible witness and in fact had lied in her family court affidavit. The Court went on to further find that there was no credible evidence to support the complainant's evidence of C.K. ever having been violent. Accordingly, the client was found not guilty of all counts.
Regina v. J.B. (2011)
Charge of domestic assault withdrawn prior to setting trial date. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to persuade the Crown that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. The client entered into a peace bond and as such the charge was withdrawn.
Regina v. S.S. (2011)
Client found not guilty of charges of Assault, Criminal Harassment x 2, Harassing phone calls, and Threaten Death x 2 after four day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Client was charged with a number of offences arising from the ending of his relationship with his spouse. The allegations included records of hundreds of phone calls and emails from S.S. that were allegedly directed at harassing the complainant. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger sought and obtained recovery of additional email and text communications between the complainant and the client, S.S. In total there were well over 500 emails and text messages. Joseph Neuberger created three briefs of emails and text messages for cross-examination aimed at undermining the complainant's evidence that the abuse was for the entirety of the relationship and continued while the couple was ending their relationship. In addition, one email recovered showed that there was in fact an assault perpetrated by the complainant on the client at or near the time of the alleged charge of assault that S.S. was charged with. Detailed and lengthy cross-examination of the complainant over two trial days established that in fact the complainant had only provided the police emails that were favourable to her version of events. In fact the complainant did not disclose contradictory emails. In addition, Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that the couple argued via email and text message about almost every conceivable issue in their relationship without the complainant ever mentioning anything about any abuse. Many of the emails put to the complainant in cross-examination established that complainant held S.S. in high regard and was very thankful for his patience with her issues. As a result of the cross-examination, S.S. was found not guilty of all charges.
Regina v. S.N. (2011)
Client found not guilty of two counts of assault and two counts of sexual assault (Domestic related charges) after a 7 day jury trial in the Superior Court in Toronto. Client was alleged to have brutally assaulted and sexually assaulted his common law spouse over a period of three years. The prosecution called the complainant, the complainant's mother in relation to timely disclosure to rebut allegations of recent fabrication and a counsellor who had seen S.N. during the relationship wherein S.N. had admitted to "hitting" the complainant. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger carefully analyzed all of the pleadings and affidavits in the family court proceeding. The complainant had made an allegation in the family court proceeding of a specific instance of child abuse that was reported to the police. Joseph Neuberger obtained all of the police records including the police notes through a Freedom of Information Act application. The records specifically refuted the allegation of child abuse. In addition, certain evidence of the complainant was in contradiction to other evidence gathered through the defence investigation. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger carefully constructed a detailed cross-examination of the two main prosecution witnesses, and through cross-examination was able to establish three instances of fabrication of allegations, and establish collusion between the two prosecution witnesses. Joseph Neuberger alleged in the defence that the complainant had fabricated the allegations in order to obtain sole custody of the one child of the marriage. Joseph Neuberger delivered a detailed two hour closing to the jury and after three hours of deliberations, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty on all counts.
J.N. v. Durham Regional Police 2011
Durham Regional Police ordered to expunge record of a withdrawn domestic assault charge from their Criminal Information Request database. David Rose appears before Ontario Superior Court on behalf of the Intervener Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
Regina v. C.J.B. (2011)
Charges of assault and Threaten Death (Domestic) withdrawn on the day of trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained copies of bank records and text messages supporting the defence theory that the allegations were motivated by the complainant's desire to empty the bank accounts and obtain more money from C.J.B. As such, the charges were withdrawn.
Regina v. D.F. (2011)
Charge of sexual assault withdrawn prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, after careful analysis of the evidence, and during lengthy negotiations with the Crown's office, was able to establish that the facts as disclosed by the complainant, did not necessarily demonstrate an intention to commit a sexual assault but rather were misconstrued by the complainant as to the client's intended actions. Accordingly, the Crown agreed that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charge was withdrawn.
Regina v. C.W.G. (2011)
Charges of sexual assault, indecent act, and criminal harassment x 2, withdrawn during trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. After extensive review of the prosecution evidence including surveillance recordings from the locations where the acts were alleged to have occurred (TTC stations) by defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, and detailed cross-examination of the complainant giving rise to serious inconsistencies between the evidence and the surveillance recordings, the Crown agreed with the defence that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. Accordingly, all charges were withdrawn on day three of the trial.
Regina v. T.B. (2011)
Client acquitted of sexual assault after two week jury trial in the Superior Court of Justice, Toronto. T.B., a professional, had met the complainant in 2005 and began and productive business relationship with her. On the night of the alleged sexual assault, the complainant along with two other business associates attended T.B.'s home for a dinner. During the evening all parties drank wine. The complainant and her professed boyfriend (one of the business associates) slept at T.B.'s residence due to being intoxicated. The complainant was woken the next morning by her boyfriend and found to be naked. The complainant alleged that T.B. had sexually assaulted her during the night when she was unconscious. The police took a statement from the complainant and her boyfriend, and then arrested T.B.. Sexual assault kit examination revealed DNA including semen that was found to be consistent with T.B.'s DNA profile. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger had a private investigator take a statement from the remaining person who attended the dinner but was not interviewed by police. At trial, Joseph Neuberger extensively cross-examined the complainant, the complainant's boyfriend, crown experts including a toxicologist and nurse, in accordance with the defence theory that the complainant had consented to sexual contact. In addition, the defence raised a reasonable doubt that the complainant suffered a "blackout" as opposed to being unconscious. The defence was able to establish significant inconsistencies in the Crown's case, as well as establish the collusion of the complainant and her boyfriend in the content of their evidence. In closing argument to the jury, Joseph Neuberger raised significant issues regarding the lack of important evidence including failure by the police to search T.B.'s residence and the Crown's failure to tendered important forensic evidence. After 28 minutes of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty.
Regina v. Q.P. (2011)
Charges of Criminal Harassment x 2, Assault, Mischief to Property, and Break and Enter with Intent x 2 (Domestic), all withdrawn after extensive defence investigation, and judicial pre-trials in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger arranged for calls from the ex-wife (complainant) to be recorded by the client in order to obtain evidence of her true motivations. In addition, Joseph Neuberger subpoenaed all cell phone records for the complainant and client as well as obtained all family court documents . The defence was able to establish that the complainant was motivated to fabricate criminal allegations to obtain advantage in the family court case, including seeking large support payments and unequal division of assets. The cell phone records confirmed the complainant was contacting Q.P. after a family court proceeding wherein the complainant sought a restraining order. The complainant continued to contact the client establishing that she had no fear of Q.P. Further defence investigation of evidence from alleged witnesses undermined the complainant's story. Accordingly, all charges were withdrawn.
Regina v. M.M. (2010)
Charges of Assault with Weapon x 2 (Domestic), Mischief Over $5,000.00, Utter Death Threat, and Public Mischief (allegedly making a false statement), all withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to trial. The client was alleged to have assaulted and threatened her former spouse and then falsely accused the spouse of threatening. There was extensive disclosure provided including a lengthy statement of the complainant suggesting that M.M.'s motivations were based in part in an attempt to secure control of the family construction business. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger extensively reviewed and analyzed the disclosure during the comprehensive defence investigation which included obtaining source documents from various sources, including the family law proceedings, to undermine crucial facts attested to by the complainant. Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that the complainant in fact fabricated the allegation of mischief, and undermined the motive argument of the complainant. Through numerous pre-trial and judicial pre-trials, Joseph Neuberger established a history of misleading evidence proffered by the complainant as against M.M. in his own effort to remove M.M. from control of the family business. As such, all charges were withdrawn.
R. v. D.M. (Y.O.) (2010)
Client was charged with assault on another student. Mr. Navarrete was retained and conducted a Crown Pre-Trial with the Crown Attorney's Office. Mr. Navarrete raised several key inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainant and also demonstrated that D.M. lived a very productive life as a student. Crown agreed to diversion (EJS) and charges were withdrawn after mediation was completed.
Regina v. L.M. (2010)
Client charged with a domestic assault on her husband. Before the first appearance at the Ontario Court of Justice in Toronto, client retained John Navarrete to assist her with the charge and to get client back home. Mr. Navarrete worked with the Crown Attorney's Office and counsel for the complainant to establish that the complainant had no fear of accused and that the accused had no prior criminal record and had lived an exemplary life. Mr. Navarrete successfully assisted in having L.M. return to her home to live with her husband. By the first court appearance, the Crown decided that she would withdraw the charge if the client completed the PARS program. Charge was ultimately withdrawn.
R. v. M.V. (2010)
Client was charged with assault, assault cause bodily harm, uttering threat and assault with a weapon for an alleged serious domestic assault that was caught partly on video. On day of trial, witness did not attend, but Crown secured an adjournment. Mr. Navarrete then filed a Notice of Application for a Stay for violation of section 11(b) on the continuing trial date. After reviewing the case, the Crown agreed that 11(b) was in issue, withdrew the charges and client then entered into a peace bond.
R. v. L. H. (2010)
Client charged with assault peace officer (X2) after a night of drinking in downtown Toronto. Mr. Navarrete was retained on this matter and immediately reviewed the Crown disclosure. Mr. Navarrete wrote to the Crown and raised several concerns he had with delay, the disclosure and police evidence. Mr. Navarrete also recommended a resolution by way of a peace bond. Crown reviewed the case and agreed to Mr. Navarrete's request. Charges were ultimately withdrawn.
R. v. L.S. (2010)
Client was charged with assault on a family member in Toronto. Matter was set down for trial. Mr. Navarrete filed various Charter applications in defence of his client. After the Crown reviewed the case and the applications, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charges in exchange for a peace bond.
Regina v. L.M. (2010)
Client charged with a sexual assault at his place of employment involving a customer. Well before the first appearance at the Ontario Court of Justice in Toronto, client retained John Navarrete to assist him with the charges. Mr. Navarrete met with the Crown Attorney's Office to discuss various legal issues surrounding the charge, facts and the client's previous exemplary life. After which, the Crown agreed to withdraw the sexual assault charge and the client entered into a peace bond.
R. v. L.D. (2010)
Charges of breach of recognizance stemming from an alleged contact breach with a hostile complainant in an original domestic assault case withdrawn prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice in Toronto. On the morning of trial, Mr. Navarrete met with the Crown Attorney to demonstrate the frailties in the Crown's case against L.D. despite the fact that the complainant was insistent on proceeding with the case. Charges were withdrawn and client entered into a peace bond.
R. v. P. D. (2010)
Client acquitted on charges of breach of recognizance (X3) stemming from an alleged contact breach with a hostile complainant in an original domestic assault case in the Ontario Court of Justice in Milton. During the trial, Mr. Navarrete vigorously cross examined the complainant on her allegations and had her admit that she forgot very important and serious details. Ultimately, the presiding Judge did not find her evidence reliable or credible to warrant a conviction.
R. v. D.G. (2010)
Charges of domestic assault was withdrawn at the early stages of the criminal proceedings in the Ontario Court of Justice in Toronto. Mr. Navarrete conducted a Crown Pre-Trial with the Crown Attorney's Office and was able to demonstrate the frailties in the Crown's case. Mr. Navarrete worked with the Crown Attorney's Office and counsel for the complainant to establish that the complainant had no fear of accused and that the accused had no prior criminal record and had lived an exemplary life. Mr. Navarrete successfully assisted in having D.G. return to his home with his partner. By the first court appearance, the Crown decided that the charges would be withdrawn upon completion of PARS and that the client would enter a peace bond. Charges were withdrawn and client entered into a peace bond.
Regina v. D.M. (2010)
Client acquitted of sexual assault and sexual interference after a three day trial in the Superior Court of Justice, Belleville. The client was charged after having met the complainant through an internet chat site. The complainant had mislead D.M. about her real age. Police were called by the parents of the complainant when she failed to return home after a walk. When the police found the complainant in the company of D.M., the police conducted an investigation into the complainant's activities with D.M. and as a result charges were laid. Defence lawyers Joseph Neuberger and Stacey Nichols worked carefully through three detailed statements by the complainant, volumes of text message and internet chat logs, and a large volume of disclosure including forensic and crime scene pictures, videos and reports. The defence brought several motions at trial to exclude various pieces of the prosecution's evidence, including a re-enactment video, and the evidence of three witnesses who were called to provide age recognition evidence. In addition Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger assailed photographs taken of the complainant several hours after the meeting with D.M. which were tendered by the Crown to establish that given the complainant's youthful appearance, D.M. failed to take all reasonable steps to ascertain the true age of the complainant pursuant to section 150.1(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada. Joseph Neuberger and Stacey Nichols successfully argued that the police had failed to protect the continuity of the complainant's appearance sufficiently, resulting in pictures that were not representative of the complainant's appearance earlier in the evening when she met with D.M. The defence further argued that given the content of the text and internet chats, as well as the evidence of the complainant, there was ample evidence to support a defence of honest but mistaken belief of age, wherein D.M. had indeed taken all reasonable steps. There were unusual and unique facts that the defence was able to present to successfully challenge the prosecution's case and as a result D.M. was found not guilty of both charges.
Regina v. G.B. (2010)
Charge of domestic assault withdrawn prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger retained an computer expert to recover deleted data and emails from the complainant, establishing a strong motive to fabricate an allegation of assault in order to gain an advantage in the family court proceedings. As a result of the defence investigation, the charge was withdrawn.
Regina v. C.Z. (2010)
Charges of domestic assault, threaten death and forcible confinement, withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket, prior to trial. Based upon the defence investigation, Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger negotiated a withdrawal of all three charges, particularly in light of inconsistencies between the complainant's statement and emails sent between the parties at the time of the alleged offences.
Regina v. A.H. (2010)
Charges of sexual assault and sexual interference withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Scarborough, prior to trial. The client was charged with a sexual assault in relation to his sister-in-law. The allegations were only disclosed to police several months after the alleged assault. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger was able to establish through the defence investigation that the reporting of the allegation coincided with a particular argument in the family, resulting in the client's wife and sister, the complainant, becoming estranged. As a result of additional inconsistencies undermining the credibility of the complainant, and the concern regarding the veracity of the compliant, the charges were withdrawn prior to the trial date.
Regina v. A.B. (2010)
Charges of Sexual Assault, Assault with a Weapon, Assault x 4 (Domestic) and Fail to Comply with Bail Recognizance x 3, were withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket, just prior to setting a trial date. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger conducted several extensive judicial pre-trials in order to set out the basis of the defence, in particular securing evidence establishing that the main charges were part of an elaborate scheme in which fabricated allegations were used to secure exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and to gain an advantage in Family court. Joseph Neuberger established a number of inconsistencies that significantly undermined the credibility of the complainant. As a result of extensive defence work, all charges were withdrawn.
Regina v. Gilbert (2010)
Client of acquitted of domestic assault after lengthy cross-examination of the Complainant and other witnesses revealed material inconsistencies in the Crown's evidence.
Regina v. J.H. (2010)
Charge of assault bodily harm (domestic) withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger established that the complainant had been the party to initiate a fist fight with J.H. As a result, J.H. reacted in self-defence in repelling the attack. Accordingly, the charge was withdrawn at trial.
Regina v. T.G. (2010)
Charge of domestic assault withdrawn prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The complainant alleged an assault just prior to the commencement of a family court motion in which the accused, T.G., sought custody and access to their son. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger was able to obtain information related to charges that the complainant was facing along with a large volume of family court documents that demonstrated several material inconsistencies in the complainant's story. In addition, the case took 16 months to come to trial. As a result, a defence application motion was filed by Mr. Neuberger to stay the proceedings for delay contrary to section 11(b) of the Charter, which protects the right to a trial within a reasonable time. In light of the strong defence application for a stay and the inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, the charge was withdrawn.
Regina v. T.H. (2010)
Charges of Assault (Domestic) and Mischief Under withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that the allegation of assault was in fact the client repelling the complainant when she had initially assaulted him. The evidence of the complainant was ambiguous on the actual sequence of the alleged assault and after careful analysis of the statement, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that given the client's defensive actions, there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. As such, both charges were withdrawn.
Regina v. P.C. (2010)
Charges of criminal harassment, harassing phone calls, assault and forcible confinement (domestic), all withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to setting a trial date. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger sought and received numerous email and text communications between the complainant and the client. In addition a defence investigation into the complainant's face book site yielded information that combined with the information from the email and text messages undermined the complainant's evidence. In addition, careful legal analysis of the facts underlying the charges, supported Joseph Neuberger's position that many of the complained actions were possibly uncomfortable for the complainant, but understandable given the relationship and most importantly were not criminal. The client, being a military police officer, had also explained much of the alleged behaviour consistent with the defence position. After extensive written argument to the crown, the crown agreed to withdraw the charges.
Regina v. Faqiryar (2010)
Client acquitted of assault after cross-examination of the Complainant by defence counsel Stacey Nichols revealed major inconsistencies in the identification evidence. The Trial Judge found that there was no evidence that the Accused was the actual culprit and dismissed the charge.
Regina v. J.P. (2010)
Charges of sexual assault and forcible confinement were withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice after extensive pre-trial meetings with the Crown and police. The client was alleged to have been involved in a human trafficking ring and to have sexually assaulted a female complainant, who had come over from Mexico, during the course of a four day trip through northern Ontario. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger transcribed all witness statements and created a detailed chart of all inconsistencies, as well as having drafted detailed disclosure requests seeking various critical pieces of information that were alleged to have been provided by the complainant. In particular, the complainant had made a refugee claim with one of the reasons to remain in Canada as being the victimization arising from the alleged sexual assault. A will-say was prepared by the lawyer acting on the immigration case for the complainant. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger relentlessly pursued the disclosure of this will-say and argued that the basis of the case was a fabricated allegation to allow the complainant to remain in Canada. A detailed written argument with source documents supporting the defence position was prepared by Joseph Neuberger and submitted to the Crown for their assessment of reasonable prospect of conviction. The Crown accepted the argument and position put forth by Joseph Neuberger and as a result the charges were withdrawn.
Regina v. P.T. (2010)
charges of domestic assault and mischief to property were withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket. The client was alleged to have assaulted his wife after an argument regarding his suspicions of infidelity and then destroyed some of her personal belongings. While returning to Toronto from a business trip, the client was arrested and held for a bail hearing. After his release from custody, various bail variations were sought by the defence to allow the client greater freedom to reconstruct his life. The statement of the complainant, once analyzed by the defence lawyer, Joseph Neuberger, yielded a wide range of evidentiary areas for cross-examination. During extensive pre-trial discussions with the Crown prosecutor, Joseph Neuberger was able to establish sufficient doubt regarding the credibility of the complainant's version of events, that the charges were withdrawn in favour of a section 810 peace bond.
Regina v. V.W. (2010)
Charges of sexual assault x 3, Forcible Confinement x 3, Assault x 3, Assault with a Weapon x 3, and Sexual Exploitation x 3, withdrawn prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Scarborough. The client was charged with numerous allegations involving BDSM activities with his former spouse. The complainant alleged that she had never consented to such activities and was essentially held captive by the client. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained recorded, in-person, conversations between the client and his wife, that were then transcribed and detailed in chart format contradicting the facts alleged by the complainant. In addition, after extensive technical investigation, the defence was also able to recover several text and emails between the client and the complainant prior to their marriage confirming her interest in marrying someone who was interested in BDSM play, and evidencing, not only her desire, but willingness to purchase equipment to enjoy such play. Additional defence investigation revealed a financial motive for the complainant to allege criminal allegations of sexual assault in order to obtain a financial payoff. In light of all of the evidence gathered by Joseph Neuberger, and then presented over the course of several meetings and judicial pre-trials, the Crown determined that that was no reasonable prospect of conviction, and accordingly all charges were withdrawn.
Regina v. A. B. (2010)
Client was charged with Sexual Assault x 7, Sexual Interference x 7, Sexual Exploitation, and Invitation to Sexual Touching. All charges were withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to trial. The client was originally charged with two counts of Sexual Assault and Sexual Interference, and released after a contentious bail hearing. The client was then arrested again after further statements were provided by the complainants, resulting in numerous additional sexual related charges. The client was released on bail after a lengthy second bail hearing. Over the course of several months, the defence carefully analyzed the numerous statements provided by the complainants, and compared the evidence against numerous emails and text messages sent by the complainants. There were extensive communications that once compared with the evidence of the complainants, undermined their evidence and supported the defence in the case. The defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger disclosed email communications and then requested a re-interview of the complainants by a different police officer. After further statements were taken, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that the complainants had fabricated much of their evidence. This fatally impaired the prosecution and resulted in all charges being withdrawn.
Regina v. C.J.B. (2010)
Client was charged with sexual assault x 2, and sexual interference x 2. Charges were withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice after extensive defence discussions with the Crown. Joseph Neuberger transcribed all video statements provided by the prosecution and carefully analyzed, and broke down each statement in chart form to establish inconsistencies that ultimately undermined the evidence for the prosecution, thereby resulting in the withdrawal of the charges.
Regina vs. S.(S.) (2010)
Client acquitted of charges of Domestic Assault and Threatening Death after lawyer Stacey Nichols cross-examined Complainant revealing that actions of accused were in self-defence and also revealing faulty memory on behalf of the Complainant relating to recollection of actual threat.
Regina v. J.M. (2010)
Client found not guilty of charges of sexual assault and sexual interference after a four day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Extensive and detailed cross-examination of the complainant, and Crown witnesses by defence counsel Joseph Neuberger, established reliability issues with the Crown's case. Further, the defence investigation, including the use of a private investigator hired by defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, produced photographs of the alleged crime scene and surrounding area, which assisted in undermining the evidence of the complainant. Finally, the client's evidence was accepted at trial. Accordingly, all charges against the client was dismissed.
Regina v. A.N. (2010)
Charges of Assault Peace Officer x 3, withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger retained a defence medical expert to review injuries sustained by the client. The results established that the client was assaulted in a manner not consistent with the evidence of the three police officers. Further, defence interviews of various potential defence witnesses, established that the client was either wrongly identified as a person who had assaulted the police or was attacked by police without physical provocation on the part of the client. Joseph Neuberger retained a private investigator to take formal statements from the defence witnesses and based upon all of the defence evidence, the crown agreed that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. All charges were therefore withdrawn.
Regina v. A.A. (2010)
Charges of Obstruct Peace Officer, Assault Peace Officer, and Mischief withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice after extensive review of the evidence with the Crown. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish a lawful purpose for the client's involvement with police and that the police acted in a hasty manner resulting in an unnecessary confrontation that did not involve any criminal conduct on the part of the client.
Regina v. S.V. (2010)
Client found not guilty of Assault and Sexual Assault after two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger successfully argued that evidence of the complainant's allegations was not admissible. In addition, evidence obtained from a recorded call from the complainant to the client's relative undermined her credibility. As such, all charges were dismissed.
Regina v. R.V. (2010)
Client found not guilty of assault, utter death threats and fail to comply (domestic), after a three-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Joseph Neuberger, defence lawyer, successfully challenged the admissibility of the DVD recorded statement of the complainant and established a Charter violation of the client's statement to police. The complainant failed to recall key aspects of the case and the Crown sought to introduce the complainant's statement in order to prove its case. The defence was able to exclude the statement, on the basis of reliability, by proving the method of questioning by the police was deficient and not a proper translation of the complainant's evidence. Given the lack of evidence with the exclusion of the statements, the client was acquitted of all charges.
Regina v. A.T. (2010)
Client found not guilty of Assault (Domestic) after a two-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer, Joseph Neuberger, cross-examined the extensively complaint on the 911 call, and the notes of officers regarding her utterances at the time of investigation, establishing motive to for the complainant to have fabricated the allegation. There were no visible injuries, when one would expect injuries given the statement of the complainant. Accordingly, Mr Neuberger was able to undermine the Crown's case and the client was acquitted.
Regina v. D.A. (2009)
Client charged with a domestic assault on his wife, held in custody for bail and released on a recognizance of bail. Well before the first appearance at the Ontario Court of Justice in Orangeville, client retained John Navarrete to assist him with the charges and to get client back home. Mr. Navarrete worked with the Crown Attorney's Office and counsel for the complainant to establish that the complainant had no fear of accused and that the accused had no prior criminal record and had lived an exemplary life. Mr. Navarrete successfully assisted in having D.A. return to his home with his wife and by the first court appearance, the Crown decided that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. Thus the charges was withdrawn.
R. v. (D.)H. 2009
David Rose defended this client on a charge of Fail to Comply with Recognizance for breaking his bail while on release for the Charge of Aggravated Assault. The Court in Milton rendered a verdict of not guilty.
Regina v. T.P. (2009)
Charges of Public Mischief, Obstruct Peace Officer, Assault x 5 (Domestic), and Mischief Over $5,000.00 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client having went to the police to complain about her boyfriend's assaultive conduct, was eventually charged by police after the police took a three hour statement from the boyfriend. The police and Crown alleged that the client intentionally made up the original allegation of assault. The client was charged with numerous assault offences, in addition to the public mischief and obstruct allegations. The boyfriend (complainant) had been in regular contact with the client by email and text messages. He continued to contact the complainant even after she was charged with the offences. He continued to call and harass her. Upon instruction by defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, the client began to record the calls. In addition, Mr. Neuberger obtained all email and text messages prior to the allegations and after. In total there were over 300 email and text messages. Mr. Neuberger, along with his senior law clerk, reviewed each communication, and transcribed the telephone calls. Mr. Neuberger developed a binder of the communications, and developed a chart setting out all inconsistencies between the emails and text messages with the statement of the boyfriend/complainant. The emails and text messages, and the recorded calls, undermined the credibility of the boyfriend's statement. The chart developed by Mr. Neuberger and his senior law clerk clearly established very critical and material inconsistencies. A further chart was developed by Mr. Neuberger with "consistencies" between the email and text messages and the statement of the client/accused. On November 26, 2009, the Crown indicated on record that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction, because of Joseph Neuberger providing a very thorough and detailed analysis of the evidence, all charges were withdrawn.
Regina v. M.W. (2009)
Charge of criminal harassment withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client was charged by his former wife with allegedly making harassing phone calls and continuing to attend her place of employment. All of the calls were recorded by the complainant. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger carefully transcribed and reviewed in detail each call. In addition, Mr. Neuberger obtained all family court documents, including the Affidavits of the complainant. Mr. Neuberger provided the Crown with a detailed analysis of the calls and the statement of the complainant with reference to the Family Court proceedings and Affidavits. As a result, the defence was able to establish that the client's calls were in response to provocative and aggressive actions taken by the complainant, and as such the Crown agreed that there was no crime committed. Accordingly, the charge was withdrawn. The Crown commended Mr. Neuberger for his usual thorough analysis of the case, resulting in the withdrawal.
Regina v. G.C. (2009)
Charges of Assault (Domestic) x 2, and Mischief x 3, withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger established material inconsistencies between various statements made by the complainant that undermined the complainant's credibility. The defence also established to the crown that defence witnesses were able to contradict the complainant's evidence. As a result, all charges were withdrawn.
Regina v. T.D. (2009)
Charges of Assault (Domestic), Threaten Death and Mischief withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger established that a particular Crown witness was not properly subpoenaed to court and without the witness, the Crown had no reasonable prospect of conviction. The inconsistencies between the complainant and the main Crown witness undermined the evidence for the Crown. As a result, all charges were withdrawn.
Regina v. J.M. (2009)
Charges of Sexual Assault x 3, Sexual Interference x 3 withdrawn at the preliminary hearing in the Ontario Court of Justice after detailed consideration of the evidence. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger persuaded the Crown that the evidence was weak with inherent contradictions. As a result all charges were withdrawn.
Regina v. Tahir (2009)
Client found not guilty of Threaten Death x 2, Assault (Domestic) and Weapons Dangerous after trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client was alleged, after having found his girlfriend with another man, to have threatened and assaulted his girlfriend and then threatened the other male. The client was also alleged to have grabbed a knife and acted in a threatening manner with the knife. After thorough cross-examination of the Crown witnesses by defence counsel Joseph Neuberger and credible evidence given by the client, all charges were dismissed by the trial judge.
Regina v. A.K. (2009)
Charges of Assault x 3 (domestic) were withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice after extensive pre-trial discussions with the Crown regarding the vagueness of the statement of the complainant. Based upon defence material provided by Joseph Neuberger the Crown agreed to withdraw all charges.
Regina v. G.S. (2009)
Client acquitted of sexual assault charge in the Ontario Court of Justice. The allegation involved sexual contact over a four hour period with an employee in a store. All sexual contact was alleged to have occurred in a back room with no surveillance cameras. The defence sought production of four hours of surveillance for the cameras in the store. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger carefully analyzed the DVD surveillance recordings producing a detailed frame by frame and second by second chart outlining all actions of the client and the complainant. Through detailed examination, the defence was able to establish that the actions of the complainant did not match her story and all timing and details as provided by the complainant were contradicted by the recorded surveillance. As such, the client was found not guilty of the charge.
Regina v. B.M. (2009)
Charges of Assault with Weapon, Assault causing Bodily Harm, Utter Death Threats, and Possession of a Weapon for a Dangerous Purpose, all withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger persuaded the Crown that the inconsistencies in the statements of the Crown witnesses were extremely difficult to overcome. As such, all charges were withdrawn.
Regina v. M.G. (2009)
Uttering threats charge in Halifax
David Rose appears in Halifax, Nova Scotia Court with client on Uttering Threats Charge, which was withdrawn as trial was to commence.
Regina v. A.M. (2009)
Client found not guilty after trial in the Ontario Court of Justice of Sexual Assault and Sexual Exploitation. The complainant and the client were known to each other only through the accused provision of transportation services for the complainant. The complainant alleged that Mr. A.M. had sexually assaulted her during transport one morning. Detailed defence investigation about the timing of the alleged sexual assault established that during the time frame that the complainant stated the sexual assault occurred, A.M. never drove the complainant in the mornings. Records obtained by defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger undermined the timing of the allegations. Other detailed defence preparation established material inconsistencies in the complainant's identification of A.M. Accordingly, A.M. was acquitted of all charges.
Regina v. J.Y. (2009)
Client acquitted of Intimidation x 3, Criminal Harassment x 3, Utter Death Treats, and Assault (Domestic) after two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Detailed and vigorous cross-examination of the complainant with the use of prior statements, including birthday cards, Valentine's Day cards and other related writings, resulted in undermining the credibility of the complainant. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant for the better part of four hours yielding numerous inconsistencies and successfully developed the defence. As a result the client was found not guilty of all charges.
Regina v. V.I. (2009)
Charges of assault and assault bodily harm withdrawn prior to the commencement of the trial as a result of the defence investigation producing contradictory evidence to the complainant's versions of events, including obtaining an expert dental report establishing that the alleged injury could not have been caused by the client. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained detailed statement from a witness that again undermined the evidence of the complainant. As such, all charges were withdrawn.
Regina v. C.A. (2009)
Charges of criminal harassment and assault withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice after detailed defence investigation establishing that the complainant fabricated the allegations.
Regina v. H.D. (2009)
Charges of Domestic assault x 6, Assault and Fail to Comply with bail x 4 withdrawn after extensive pre-trial defence disclosure and discussions with the Crown Attorney. The prosecution evidence alleged that the client, during the course of committing an assault on his wife, also self-inflicted head and facials injuries (on himself) for which he sought to blame one of the complainant's witnesses as the perpetrator. The investigating police officers viewed the injuries to H.D. (Client) and determined that they were self-inflicted. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger commenced an investigation into the reasons for the complainant to fabricate the allegations. Joseph Neuberger retained three medical experts and obtained opinion evidence that the injuries sustained by his client were not self-inflicted. As well the injury sustained by the complainant was not consistent with her description of how she stated that she was assaulted. In addition the defence obtained defence witness statements undermining the stories of the Crown witnesses. All defence evidence was presented in a defence forensic binder put together by Joseph Neuberger. The defence evidence compelled a determination that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction as against H.D. Accordingly, all charges were withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice.
Regina v. O.G. (2009)
Charge of Assault withdrawn prior to trial after defence counsel Joseph Neuberger conducted defence investigation yielding two defence witness statements that undermined the credibility of the complainant. As a result, the Crown had no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charge was withdrawn.
Regina v. J.M. (2009)
Charges of Criminal Harassment withdrawn prior to trial pursuant to negotiation with Crown regarding the reasonable prospect of conviction.
Regina v. Hoyte (2009)
Client acquitted of Domestic Assault in the Ontario Court of Justice pursuant to comprehensive cross-examination of Complainant and detailed presentation of defence evidence.
Regina v. Page-Cole (2008)
Charges of Aggravated Assault withdrawn at the preliminary hearing in the Ontario Court of Justice after detailed presentation of evidence undermining the evidence of the main Crown witness.
Regina v. M.R. (2008)
Charges of assault police officer x 2 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice after directed challenge to the force used in apprehending the client.
Regina v. Pealow (2008)
Client found not guilty of a charge of utter death threat (domestic) in the Ontario Court of Justice after two day trial. The Crown conceded a verdict of not guilty after defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger completed his cross-examination of the complainant.
Regina v. V.D. (2008)
Client found not guilty of sexual assault, sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching after a five day jury trial in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Detailed cross-examination by Joseph Neuberger of the Crown witnesses arising from extensive preparation proved effective in undermining the credibility of the complainant and the supporting Crown witness. A strong jury closing resulted in a jury verdict of not guilty within 1 hour 20 minutes of the jury deliberating.
Regina v. Rohani (2008)
Charge of sexual assault withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger aggressively pursued defence investigation on fabrication by the complainant. Crown withdrew as they had no reasonable prospect of conviction.
Regina v. L.D. (2008)
Domestic charges withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice pursuant to pressure by defence lawyer Ms. Stacey Nichols to assess the Crown's reasonable prospect of conviction.
Regina v. Williams (2008)
Client found not guilty of possession of a loaded handgun and carry concealed weapon after a two week jury trial in the Ontario Superior Court. our Defence lawyer advanced a duress argument, such that the client held the weapon under threat of death. After careful and detailed cross-examination of crown witnesses, which supported the behaviour of the client at the time of investigation and arrest consistent with someone who might have been frightened by a threat of harm, and a strong jury closing, the client was found not guilty of both charges.
Regina v. Graham (2008)
Charges of domestic assault and fail to comply withdraw at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger argued successfully a Charter violation of the client's right to be tried within a reasonable time. Aggressive pursuit of full disclosure and setting a trial date established that the defence was seeking the earliest possible trial date. The delay of 11.5 months, and consequently the charges were withdrawn
Regina v. D.J. (2008)
Client acquitted of Kidnapping, Forcible Confinement, Aggravated Assault and Conspiracy to Commit Assault in the Ontario Court of Justice pursuant to skillful cross-examination of witnesses and legal argument by Ms. Stacey Nichols which revealed that Crown case did not meet required standard for conviction.
Regina v. Thomas (2008)
Client acquitted of domestic assault at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice following cross-examination of the complaint demonstrating numerous instances of inconsistencies in the complainant's version of the allegations and a complete lack of evidence of an assault.
Regina v. M.S. (2008)
Client found not guilty of domestic assault after three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Detailed and thorough cross-examination of the complainant by defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger focused on instances of past aggressive behaviour by the complainant including previously biting the client and implausible and exaggerated aspects of her evidence.
Regina v. Meek (2008)
Charges of domestic assault x 3 and fail to appear withdrawn prior to trial after defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger established lack of credibility of the complainant's allegations.
Regina v. S.M. (2008)
Charges of Robbery x 2 and Assault x 2 withdrawn prior to trial after Joseph Neuberger negotiated withdrawal of all charges based on inconsistencies in the evidence of Crown witnesses.
Regina v. De Karic (2008)
Client found not guilty of charges of domestic assault and assault bodily harm in the Ontario Court of Justice after aggressive defence by Joseph Neuberger including careful attention to the set date phase of the proceedings and the lack of evidence to substantiate the charge.
Regina v. Szymanski (2007)
Charges of Sexual Assault and Assault discharged at the Preliminary hearing in the Ontario Court of Justice after extensive and detailed cross-examination of the Crown witnesses including undermining the credibility of the complainant, and establishing that the complainant had motive to fabricate.
Regina v. C.S. (2007)
Charge of Assault withdrawn prior to trial after Joseph Neuberger established that accused was assaulted first and sustained injury caused by the complainant.
Regina v. K.R. (2007)
Charges of Assault with Weapon and Assault withdrawn prior to trial, based upon defence establishing credibility problems with the Crown's case.
Regina v. Kovachev (2007)
The client was charged with 4 counts of sexual assault and sexual interference. Four day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice before Justice Campling. Client was acquitted of all charges.
Regina v. Johnston (2007)
Charges of domestic assault, threaten death and careless storage of ammunition withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice after defence investigation into complainant's attempts to extort a financial settlement in the Family law proceedings. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger retained the services of a private investigator and obtained statements and a recording of voice message left that seriously undermined the credibility of the complainant. As a result, the domestic assault and threatening allegations were withdrawn prior to trial.
Regina v. A.S. (2007)
Client found not guilty of sexual assault, sexual interference after a three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Detailed and vigorous cross-examination of the complainant undermined the reliability of the evidence of the complainant. The trial judge accepted defence counsel Joseph Neuberger's submissions on the lack of plausibility of the various allegations. Accordingly, the client was acquitted of all charges.
Regina v. Hassen (2007)
Client found not guilty of sexual assault by a jury after counsel's thorough cross-examination of complainant revealed contradictions and inconsistencies in the Crown's evidence.
Regina v. P.M. (2007)
After trial, client found not guilty of domestic assault charges arising from York Regional Police investigation in Newmarket.
Regina v. W.W. (2007)
Client found not guilty of sexual assault x 2, sexual interference x 2, arising from historical sexual assault allegations in the Superior Court of Justice after a three day trial. At the preliminary hearing, detailed and comprehensive cross-examination produced transcripts of evidence that provided fruitful support for the defence theory at trial. During the Superior Court trial, defence counsel Joseph Neuberger relentlessly cross-examined both complainants on all aspects of their evidence including inconsistencies generated by the transcripts from the preliminary hearing and video taped statements. Through cross-examination the defence theory was put to each witness. At the end of the cross-examination of both complainants, the Crown conceded that there was no longer any reasonable prospect of conviction and directed the court to dismiss all four charges.
Regina v. D.V. (2007)
Charges of Sexual Assault and Gang Sexual Assault stayed at the preliminary hearing in the Ontario Court of Justice. Relentless defence requests by Joseph Neuberger for detailed disclosure, and comprehensive examination of the Crown evidence resulted in the Crown being delayed in providing the case to the defence. By the time of the preliminary hearing, with the significant delay, inconsistencies in the Crown's evidence and the use of forensic evidence supporting the client's denial of the allegations resulted in the charges being stayed.
Regina v. R.M. (2007)
Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault and Forcible Confinement after three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Cross- examination of the complainant developed the defence theory that all actions alleged were consensual. Further, cross-examination established numerous inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainant as compared to her DVD statement. Consequently, the Justice found the client not guilty of both charges.
Regina v. J.T. (2007)
Charge of sexual assault withdrawn after successful mistrial application sought by Joseph Neuberger in the Ontario Court of Justice.
Regina v. Sibte (2007)
Client acquitted of sexual assault charge after two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Detailed cross examination by Joseph Neuberger undermined the reliability of the complainant's allegations resulting in a finding of not guilty
Regina v. I.D. (2007)
Charges of utter death threats x 2, and assault (Domestic) withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice as a result of defence analysis of the statements of witnesses and the complainants establishing that the allegations could not have occurred. Thus, all charges were withdrawn.
Regina v. M(L) (2006)
Charges of Robbery withdrawn by Crown Attorney after counsel successfully argues that there is no reasonable prospect of conviction due to identity issues.
Regina v. Young (2006)
Client acquitted of criminal harassment after thorough cross-examination of Complainant. Judge agrees pursuant to counsel's submissions that offence of criminal harassment not made out.
Regina v. Ahmad (2006)
Five charges of sexual assault dismissed after defence cross-examination of the Complainant pinpointing numerous inconsistencies in the evidence.
Regina v. Tuitt (2006)
Charges of Threatening and Fail to Comply with Recognizance withdrawn by Crown Attorney after Defence points out difficulties with the anticipated evidence and problems with the charging documents.
Regina v. D.S. (2006)
Client found not guilty of sexual assault and assault after 3-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, after detailed and vigorous cross-examination of all Crown witnesses, including the complainant and her witnesses. Extensive preparation of the client also assisted in the client being believed by the Judge and based upon the credibility issues of the complainant and her witnesses, the charges were dismissed.
Regina v. Simpson (2006)
Charges of Assault x 4 (Domestic), Threaten Death and Fail to Comply all withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice as a result of defence investigation disclosing numerous inconsistencies in complainant's evidence and fabrication of other allegations.
Regina v. Zamkovoj (2006)
Two counts of assault, one count of threatening death and one count of breached probation withdrawn after Complainant does not attend court and Crown asks for adjournment to secure her attendance. Counsel presented recanting statement taken from Complainant by private investigator, forming basis for Judge not granting adjournment and reason why charges ultimately withdrawn.
